The prosecutor's job is to indict, or not indict. They are not supposed to leave doubt by insinuating there's evidence of a crime.

Mueller used the old smear tactic low-life prosecutor's use. After a jury returns a "not guilty", they stand in front of cameras lecturing how "Not guilty is not the same as 'innocent'".

That's AFTER the trial.

Trump hasn't been charged. He hasn't been tried. And he hasn't been adjudicated "Not Guilty", yet Mueller felt the need to state Trump was not exonerated?  That's not what a prosecutor does. That's what a trial does.

Trump's had no formal charges filed, no discovery, no chance to present a defense, etc.

Mueller was way out of line to put anything like "not exonerated" in his report. He did it to throw a bone to the never-Trumpers, which they have happily latched onto.

Mueller should have either indicted for obstruction, or just reported there was insufficient evidence to indict. Period. End of story.

I've seen comparisons to Mueller's stunt with Comey's press conference on Clinton's emails. Not even close IMO. Comey was not a special counsel. He'd already exonerated her before investigating or interviewing her. Comey was the FBI director -- the DOJ/USAG indicts, even though Lynch pretended to recuse herself.  Comey laid out the case proving Clinton broke laws, obstructed, and destroyed evidence, then declined to recommend charges. I see no parallel with Trump. We've seen no evidence of obstruction, and Mueller deferred to the AG to evaluated the situation. Barr and several other people/agencies decided no obstruction. Yet, that's not what the Trump-haters are taking away from  the letter.

Obstruction was the only crime Mueller could have hoped to prove, and Trump was too smart to step into that trap.  "Not exonerated" was Mueller's parting shot after failing to "GET TRUMP".

Exactly what I told her, but due to TDS, she's clinging onto the "not exonerated".   Then went on to "Well he did commit other crimes".  So I asked what crimes, name 1.  And she couldn't.  So told her to refer to my handcuff reference.

Exactly what I told her, but due to TDS, she's clinging onto the "not exonerated".   Then went on to "Well he did commit other crimes".  So I asked what crimes, name 1.  And she couldn't.  So told her to refer to my handcuff reference.

Try this one on her:

With people near Trump being charged, tried and convicted of crimes they committed unrelated to Russian collusion, would it not be logical to assume they would try to get a plea deal by rolling over on Trump or his campaign if collusion was real?

Is it also not logical that Mueller would have filed charges related to Russian collusion or interfering in the 2016 election if such evidence existed?

We don't require people to prove they didn't do something. We require prosectors provide evidence a crime was committed.

That's as close to exoneration as anyone can hope for: NO INDICTMENT.

They seem to have no problem finding funding to provide security for all other speakers. Take a look at the school's website of speaker events. They aren't cutting back on speakers due to security not getting paid.

It's a sham to shut down conservative speakers -- plain and simple.

How many liberal speakers did they have to provide extra security for because there were violent republicans?

I don't doubt that it is an excuse but the cost associated is still a a valid concern from a financial point of view. This doesn't mean they should be allowed to stifle free speech of course but cost is still cost and taxpayers end up footing a bit of the cost.

Trump hasn't been charged. He hasn't been tried. And he hasn't been adjudicated "Not Guilty", yet Mueller felt the need to state Trump was not exonerated?  That's not what a prosecutor does. That's what a trial does.

Trump's had no formal charges filed, no discovery, no chance to present a defense, etc.

Mueller was way out of line to put anything like "not exonerated" in his report. He did it to throw a bone to the never-Trumpers, which they have happily latched onto.

I disagree. Pointing out that the findings don't exonerate Trump is an appropriate statement. He states both what the findings indicate and what they do not. It was a fair and neutral statement.

Mueller knew that both sides would try to twist and turn his findings and he was right. So the best thing he could do is clearly state what he did. Many Trump supporters I know pointed to the report and falsely concluded that the report shows Trump innocent when that is not accurate. It just shows there is insufficient evidence of a crime.

It is put quite succinctly in the quote/phrase "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

there needs to  be another investigation done by a person besides Meuller.
Just as much as there needs to be an investigation into the public disclosure of those silos here on Oahu. It's all about transparency and the truth.

I don't doubt that it is an excuse but the cost associated is still a a valid concern from a financial point of view. This doesn't mean they should be allowed to stifle free speech of course but cost is still cost and taxpayers end up footing a bit of the cost.

They should then tell liberals to stop being violent.  Not 1 university has come out and said that or defended the right to free speech.  Remember the SCOTUS ruled even KKK (hate speech) is protected by the 1A.

I disagree. Pointing out that the findings don't exonerate Trump is an appropriate statement. He states both what the findings indicate and what they do not. It was a fair and neutral statement.

Mueller knew that both sides would try to twist and turn his findings and he was right. So the best thing he could do is clearly state what he did. Many Trump supporters I know pointed to the report and falsely concluded that the report shows Trump innocent when that is not accurate. It just shows there is insufficient evidence of a crime.

It is put quite succinctly in the quote/phrase "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

So no evidence of a crime does not mean innocent?  There is no evidence that you kidnapped a child today.  I guess you're neither guilty nor innocent (Schorldengers Cat).  So 1 could argue that you might have kidnapped a child today.

We all know who Mueller works for and he added in that "exonerate" sentence just to make the DNC happy.

If only we lived in a world where facts and reality held any weight in the delusional states of Dems/libs/socialists/fascists....

So no evidence of a crime does not mean innocent?  There is no evidence that you kidnapped a child today.  I guess you're neither guilty nor innocent (Schorldengers Cat).  So 1 could argue that you might have kidnapped a child today.

We all know who Mueller works for and he added in that "exonerate" sentence just to make the DNC happy.

One is certainly presumed innocent but that doesn't mean the person didn't commit a crime. Lets say I ran up behind you and took your backpack but you never saw my face because I was running away from you. You call the cops to report the crime and the cops find me nearby wearing a jacket similar to the one you described. The cops bring you to look at me but you tell the cops you never saw my face so you can't tell whether I am the same person. Now if there are no other witnesses or evidence to go on the cops will have to let me go.

Now in such an instance there is not enough evidence to show I committed the crime, but the investigation also didn't show I was innocent either.

Mueller works for the US Government. He is a registered republican and appointed to positions by both Bush presidents. Mueller was picked for this job by Rod Rosenstein who was appointed by Trump himself. Attacks on Mueller's integrity are a blatant and shameless pre-emptive attempt at discrediting anything bad he might have found out about Trump. The Trump lemmings don't care about the truth here, they only want to see Trump fully exonerated so anything short of that automatically becomes some baseless claim of secretly working for the democrats. Republicans who are upset about him saying Trump is not exonerated are just as pathetic as democrats who are saying that statement is proof Trump is guilty of something. Neither is real justice.

I had a problem with Muellers credibility when he said Iraq had WMDs and an entire war was based on that.

One is certainly presumed innocent but that doesn't mean the person didn't commit a crime. Lets say I ran up behind you and took your backpack but you never saw my face because I was running away from you. You call the cops to report the crime and the cops find me nearby wearing a jacket similar to the one you described. The cops bring you to look at me but you tell the cops you never saw my face so you can't tell whether I am the same person. Now if there are no other witnesses or evidence to go on the cops will have to let me go.

Now in such an instance there is not enough evidence to show I committed the crime, but the investigation also didn't show I was innocent either.

Mueller works for the US Government. He is a registered republican and appointed to positions by both Bush presidents. Mueller was picked for this job by Rod Rosenstein who was appointed by Trump himself. Attacks on Mueller's integrity are a blatant and shameless pre-emptive attempt at discrediting anything bad he might have found out about Trump. The Trump lemmings don't care about the truth here, they only want to see Trump fully exonerated so anything short of that automatically becomes some baseless claim of secretly working for the democrats. Republicans who are upset about him saying Trump is not exonerated are just as pathetic as democrats who are saying that statement is proof Trump is guilty of something. Neither is real justice.

Trump was not indicted (charged) with any crime. Thus, he was never put on trial, he was never given the chance to provide a defense, and he was never adjudicated "not guilty".

The presumption of innocence is not a slogan. It's a fact. Trump is innocent until proven guilty. No one is required to prove they are not guilty unless formally charged.

Mueller didn't even get the ball rolling past the first step: indictment. Why not? Because there is insufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that he committed any crime. They can't even conclude a crime was ever committed by Trump, his campaign or his administration related to "Russian collusion."

Exonerated.

Trump was not indicted (charged) with any crime. Thus, he was never put on trial, he was never given the chance to provide a defense, and he was never adjudicated "not guilty".

The presumption of innocence is not a slogan. It's a fact. Trump is innocent until proven guilty. No one is required to prove they are not guilty unless formally charged.

Mueller didn't even get the ball rolling past the first step: indictment. Why not? Because there is insufficient evidence to support a reasonable suspicion that he committed any crime. They can't even conclude a crime was ever committed by Trump, his campaign or his administration related to "Russian collusion."

Exonerated.

Yes, Trump is innocent until proven guilty however he is not exonerated.

As I illustrated to changemyoil in a hypothetical situation there is a case where someone is "innocent" in the eyes of the law but is not exonerated by the investigation. 

To be exonerated Mueller would have to have found evidence that Trump didn't commit the crime in question. A lack of evidence isn't evidence to the contrary, it is just a lack of evidence.

A real life example would be where DNA testing proves that the accused was not the one who did the crime. The DNA evidence exonerates that person. A lack of evidence does not exonerate, Trump is not exonerated.

Yes, Trump is innocent until proven guilty however he is not exonerated.

As I illustrated to changemyoil in a hypothetical situation there is a case where someone is "innocent" in the eyes of the law but is not exonerated by the investigation. 

To be exonerated Mueller would have to have found evidence that Trump didn't commit the crime in question. A lack of evidence isn't evidence to the contrary, it is just a lack of evidence.

A real life example would be where DNA testing proves that the accused was not the one who did the crime. The DNA evidence exonerates that person. A lack of evidence does not exonerate, Trump is not exonerated.

You can't honestly say Mueller is required to prove a negative for Trump to be exonerated.

You don't know the definition of "exonerate." It's NOT a synonym for "innocent."

But, you go ahead and pretend it is.

He was ACCUSED of colluding with Russians to interfere with the 2016 election.

He was CLEARED of those accusations.

That's the very definition of EXONERATE.

Learn something for a change.

I'd like to see Trump's birth certificates...

I'd like to see Trump's birth certificates...

It takes all kinds ....

Was Donald Trump Born in Pakistan?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-was-born-in-pakistan/

After ...

*19 lawyers

*40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, & more

*2,800+ subpoenas

*500 search warrants

*500 witnesses

*$25 MILLION+ in taxpayer dollars

*and over 2 years  ...

if you still think Trump or anyone in his campaign colluded with Russia,

either you're suffering from TDS, or Trump is the most intelligent and capable person to ever sit in the Oval Office.  Such a large conspiracy would be bound to fall apart by now.



There was NO COLLUSION.

Did Donald Trump bankroll the ICBM silos on Oahu?
I'm sure Mazie Hirono would like to lead the investigation into that allegation. If there no evidence to be found...well...he's not exactly innocent is he?!

Dont ask for trumps birth cert, someone may end up being in a plane crash and the only person to die in it from no direct  injuries.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You can't honestly say Mueller is required to prove a negative for Trump to be exonerated.

You don't know the definition of "exonerate." It's NOT a synonym for "innocent."

Why do you waste your time on this fool?

Been clear for a long time he is here only to try and stir up comments the HPD can use as evidence of something.

Appropriate they chose a leftist who would naturally have antipathy for the majority of members here.